BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 10.11.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU W.P.(MD)No.4557 of 2024 and W.M.P.(MD)No.4389 of 2024 The Correspondent, St.Joseph's High School, Sarel, Sarel Post – 629 203, Kanyakumari District. ... Petitioner Vs

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9.

2.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai – 6.

3.The Chief Educational Officer, Nagercoil – 629 001, Kanyakumari District.

4.The District Educational Officer, Nagercoil – 629 001, Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents PRAYER:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the third respondent pertaining to its proceeding in Na.Ka.No.8641/A4/2023 dated 06.01.2024 and to quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to approve the appointment of S.Kalaiselvi as Office Assistant with effect from 04.05.2020 by considering the proposal re-submitted by the petitioner on 18.01.2024 and to disburse all monetary benefits ocnsequent to the same within a time frame that may be fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh For Respondents : Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the 3^rd respondent dated 06.01.2024 and for a consequential direction to forthwith to approve the appointment of S.Kalaiselvi as Office Assistant with effect from 04.05.2020, by considering the proposal re-submitted by the petitioner on 18.01.2024 and to disburse all monetary benefits ocnsequent to the same

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are about 264 students studying in the school and one post of Office Assistant in the petitioner School fell vacant on 30.04.2020, in which place they had also appointed one S.Kalaiselvi with effect from 04.05.2020. A proposal had been sent to the fourth respondent on 21.09.2020, seeking approval of her appointment and to disburse the grant in aid.

3. The said proposal had been returned instructing the petitioner school to re~submit the proposal after obtaining additional information regarding certificate for permanent reorganization, charge of staff report it is mentioned as S.Kaliselvi instead of S.Kalaiselvi and also seeking to enclose the genuinity certificates of educational qualification.

4. He further submits that there is no surplus non~teaching staff available in the school for them to be re~deployed. That apart, he would submit that the post being a sanctioned post in which already grant in aid has been given and the new appointment has been made, it is incumbent on the part of the respondents to approve the same.

5. He further submits even if G.O.MS.No.238, dated 13.11.2018 is upheld, it will not affect the claim of the petitioner in the present case as the strength of the school is more than the maximum prescribed under G.O.MS.No.238.

6.The learned Additional Government Pleader on the other hand submits that the claim of the petitioner had not been rejected in its entirety. It has been withheld for the time being for further instructions from the Director of School Education and the petitioner school was only directed to re~submit the proposal after receipt of the instructions from the Head of the Department. Therefore, he would submit that there is no error in the order impugned and the petitioner can await for further orders from the Head of the Department.

7. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.

8. A perusal of the records would indicate that the petitioner school is eligible for approval to the post of Office Assistant. All it envisages is that unless and until any further instructions is given by the Director of School Education, no orders could be pa